I have been trying not to write about this since I firstheard about it (thanks, Shanghaiist), largely because I would need to learn more curse words before I could truly express my opinion on this issue.

In fact, while we’re on the topic, those of you who are offended by profanity may want to change the channel right about now.

Anyway, the story doesn’t seem to want to die, so here it is: A while ago, the Chinese State Administration for Religious Affairs allowed not one but two foreign ministers to come to China and do the evangelical thing for a crowd of 14,000. One of them, James Meeks, is also an Illinois senator and a member of a group that “strives to erase the division between church and state” as well as “a stalwart anti-gay activist”. The bigots preachers showed up with a full gospel choir, and apparently managed to convert 500 of the attendees.

When he’s not in China spreading the good word, though, Meeks keeps busy in the US, doing things like fighting against an anti-discrimination bill for LGBT Illinois citizens, putting on church Halloween shows that depict gays being burned in hell, and blaming “Hollywood Jews” for the movie Brokeback Mountain.

Now, that this kind of guy is allowed to come to China and preach is concerning enough. Isn’t the upside of being a country with no real freedom of speech that China can tell guys like this to go fuck themselves? Obviously, homophobia is far from nonexistent in China even among non-Christians, but the government has been taking clear steps in the right direction over the past ten years. And if a survey by sexologist Li Yinhe is accurate, Chinese people are actually more open-minded than you might think. She found that while most people think homosexuality is wrong, over 90% of those surveyed felt gays should have equal employment rights, 80% said gays were “equal individuals” and a majority of those surveyed said that gay-themed entertainment should be allowed to be shown openly.

So why does it seem like the leadership of State-approved Chinese churches are also headed in the wrong direction? Fu Xianwei, a high-ranking official in the official Protestant church, recently attended a big conference of anti-gay bishops in Singapore, and he wants to expand his church’s cooperation with the group (the Anglican Global South). The AGS itself is in a bit of a spat with the US Anglican Church over its ordination of a gay bishop and blah blah why is this suddenly sounding like the kind of crap I have to read in American papers every day?

Look, I like a story about bigots being bigoted in the name of Jesus as much as the next guy (i.e., not at all), but if this sort of stuff has to happen, can’t we keep it confined to the crazies in America? China has enough social problems, it doesn’t need to import America’s, and it certainly doesn’t need to be giving morons like James Weeks the idea that China is a fertile ground for him to recruit people to hold “God Hates Fags” signs at rallies.

Freedom of religion is a wonderful thing — well, an OK thing — but it doesn’t exist here in China. Isn’t the upside of that that we should be spared from this bigoted fundamentalist bullshit? As of yet, the machinations of the Chinese Church have gone unnoticed by the people, who by and large do not believe in or care about Christianity, but China has an opportunity to wield its great authoritarian power for good here, and I don’t understand why they aren’t taking advantage of it (OK, I do understand, but I wish they would it anyway).

Skilled readers will notice that I haven’t said anything negative about Christians or Christianity in general, which is because I have nothing against it. While I’m not currently religious, I used to be1, and I respect people who are — unless they’re the fundamentalist sort that read the Bible selectively (or just straight-up incorrectly) and use God as an excuse to push their backwards “values” on people who don’t want them and to abuse homosexuals and those who love and support them. If that’s the kind of person you are, then yes, you should take this post personally, because I am calling you an idiot. But I doubt that applies to many of our readers here.

Thoughts?

In fact, coincidentally, my iTunes is playing dc Talk’s album Jesus Freak right now, and it is still really good. [↩]

To me, one of China’s greatest strengths is that people here enjoy freedom from religion. If that ever goes sideways over here and the State has some sort of Constantine conversion, I would seriously have to rethink my long-term plans.

If we have to suffer from religion in the world, we should at least strive to keep its influence away from public policy. As God intended.

“but China has an oppor­tu­nity to wield its great author­i­tar­ian power for good here, and I don’t under­stand why they aren’t tak­ing advan­tage of it”

Custer, I find it ironic you say this, considering in past articles you’ve criticized the ruling Communist Party for its authoritarian actions. Now you say them wielding authoritarian power in favor of cracking down on homophobia. Could you be a bigger hypocrite than that? You’ve made is clear in the past you don’t want to live under authoritarian rule but now, all of a sudden, authoritarian actions are a good thing as long as the CCP cracks down on homophobes? Double standards much?

I’m sorry, it’s just that normally I do think you write some really great articles. Your past few articles have, in fact, been probably some of your best in my opinion(especially the article on Tibet). But every now and then you let your own emotions get the best of you and and churn up something like this where you whine, complain, and let your own tantrums run rampant when things don’t go the way you think they should.

I don’t hate gay people at all. I was born into a Catholic family but I’m not really a practicing Catholic at this point. I couldn’t care more or less what homosexuals do on their own time because it doesn’t affect the way I live my life one way or another and judging from what I’ve seen while I lived in China, most Chinese people don’t really care about homosexuality either. If you’ve read the course of Chinese history carefully, you’d see that no one religion has ever dominated China fully. It didn’t back then and there’s no reason to think that they will now. Which is why in this article, you just come off as a tad bit whiney and insecure. Even if gay marriage never gets legalized in China, gay people themselves will never be persecuted ruthlessly. To say that you’re overreacting to this one preacher being in China would be an understatement.

“While I’m not cur­rently reli­gious, I used to be1, and I respect peo­ple who are — unless they’re the fun­da­men­tal­ist sort that read the Bible selec­tively (or just straight-up incor­rectly) and use God as an excuse to push their back­wards “val­ues” on peo­ple who don’t want them and to abuse homo­sex­u­als and those who love and sup­port them. If that’s the kind of per­son you are, then yes, you should take this post per­son­ally, because I am call­ing you an idiot. But I doubt that applies to many of our read­ers here.”

I’m not really a serious practicing Christian and I don’t really care much about the Evangelical types but I do feel compelled to speak up about this. In your desire to send forth the message that gay people shouldn’t be discriminated against, you yourself have shown that you’re not above generalizing other people and condemning them with the same fiery attitude which you decry Christian nutjobs for having. I want you to think about this for a bit. If you don’t want people judging and condemning homosexuals, you shouldn’t set a bad example yourself and start judging those people right back and calling them “idiots.” It’s rather counterproductive, don’t you think?

Six paragraphs of misguided comment. We are simply talking about laying the groundwork for potential hate crimes down the track. Create the wedge, and then hammer home your message of exclusion, and that is what is happening here.

Putting aside Custer’s editorialising, this is a simple issue of allowing these imports to create social differences where they don’t presently exist. China doesn’t need this sort of US nonsense.

Nobody listens to these Evangelicals. They’re just a bunch of nutjobs who can’t get their message across even if they wanted to. Most people in general are more open-minded than that. A lot of Chinese people in general aren’t really for or against homosexuality, they just don’t care. While they may not wave signs supporting gay marriage, they aren’t going to go lynching gays either.

I still would prefer a non-authoritarian government. But if we have to have one, wouldn’t it be nice if we could at least enjoy the advantages of that form of government.

If you read the article, you’ll notice it’s actually not just about “one preacher”.

And I think it’s fair to call bigoted fundamentalists idiots in the same way it would be fair to call people who enjoy licking electric sockets idiots. Becoming that kind of fundamentalist is a conscious choice, and it’s an identity group that people insert themselves into intentionally (and that they can also remove themselves from at will). The characteristic they share by definition is something I find to be stupid. Calling them all idiots may be a generalization, but it’s a generalization in the same way saying “All cars have wheels” is. That group voluntarily shares a set of beliefs, and you may not agree with my assessment of it, but I don’t think it’s unfair at all to judge as a group based on it.

Remember I wasn’t talking about all fundamentalists. Just “the fundamentalist sort that read the Bible selec tively (or just straight-up incorrectly) and use God as an excuse to push their backwards “values” on people who don’t want them and to abuse homosexuals and those who love and support them”. Do you really disagree that it’s unfair to call them idiots as a group?

“china/divide features social and political commentary relating to modern China. We seek to go beyond knee-jerk stereotypes, nationalism, and prejudice to engage in genuine discussions of contemporary issues, both in our writing and together with our commenters.”

The purpose of your blog is to go beyond knee-jerk stereotypes and present a moderate voice where all opinions can be respected. I’m just holding you accountable to that. Unless of course you’re one of those “no tolerance for the intolerant!” types. Which I’m guessing you are, hahaha.

You admit you’re generalizing and casting judgment on people when the whole point of your blog is to be open-minded and not participate in these kinds of behaviors. I call a spade a spade Custer. You’re a hypocrite and a charlatan, every bit as much as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, except you’re on the opposite end of their spectrum.

Remem ber I wasn’t talk ing about all fun da men tal ists. Just “the fun da men tal ist sort that read the Bible selec tively (or just straight-up incor rectly) and use God as an excuse to push their back wards “val ues” on peo ple who don’t want them and to abuse homo sex u als and those who love and sup port them”. Do you really dis agree that it’s unfair to call them idiots as a group?

Well technically speaking, homosexuality really isn’t something most churches(a few exceptions aside) will condone no matter what fundamentalists might push. Go read the Catechism of the Catholic Church or go speak with a few Christian theological scholars and they’ll tell you that homosexuality is a sin which shouldn’t be condoned. Most Christians are against homosexuality. There are indeed those who oppose homosexuality but at the same time, believe homosexuals are people too and should be treated with loving kindness. Therefore, you can’t really condemn all the fundies who oppose homosexuality without condemning most Christians who are themselves against homosexuality on a moral level. I’ve lived around Christian families and peers most of my life so I do believe with good reason that I know what I’m talking about.

That said, I am what you might consider a “cafeteria Catholic” who doesn’t really go to church. But I’ll still call out ignoramuses like yourself when I feel you really don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to Christianity. When you think about it, I’m also selectively picking and choosing what to believe but yet your not going out of your way to condemn me for it. For example, I’ve smoked and drank alcohol before when the Bible does say I should keep my body as a temple, or something to that effect. Yet when people use the Bible/God to condemn homosexuality(and technically, homosexuality is a sin under those rules) you act as if they’re picking and choosing when the fact is, they’re just maintaining, for better or worse, real Christian standards. C’mon Custer, aren’t you going to call me out for my selective Christian lifestyle? Why do the fundies get all the bashing? Can’t I get in on some of the Custer-sauce of reverse-bigotry?

“That said, I am indeed a hyp­ocrite. Con­grats on fig­ur­ing that out.”

Oh, I’ve figured it out for quite a while now. Behind that facade of “moderate” enthusiasm is a self-righteous little man-boy who gets butt-hurt the moment people say things he doesn’t like to hear. What especially exposed you for being the charlatan you are was when you said authoritarianism would be great if it would stamp out homophobia. Before I used to think you were an intelligent guy who saw both sides of the story without necessarily sensationizing what goes on in China or propping up romantic myths about authoritarianism. But now I see you’re every bit the selective hypocrite you accuse fundies of being. Freedom and democracy are great things, according to you, but authoritarianism can also be a good thing… as long as it does what you want and gets rid of the people/ideas you don’t favor?

Custer, this article has basically exposed you for being the charlatan you are. You don’t even need me to do that. I would suggest that before you write any further articles, to think over what you’ve said and strongly mull over why you support authoritarianism when it’s convenient for you. The answers may surprise and even frighten you once you’ve dug deep enough.

Also Custer, since you seem to have missed my point, I’ll re-paste what I’ve said so that you will(hopefully) get the message.

“In your desire to send forth the mes­sage that gay peo­ple shouldn’t be dis­crim­i­nated against, you your­self have shown that you’re not above gen­er­al­iz­ing other peo­ple and con­demn­ing them with the same fiery atti­tude which you decry Chris­t­ian nutjobs for hav­ing. I want you to think about this for a bit. If you don’t want peo­ple judg­ing and con­demn­ing homo­sex­u­als, you shouldn’t set a bad exam­ple your­self and start judg­ing those peo­ple right back and call­ing them “idiots.” It’s rather coun­ter­pro­duc­tive, don’t you think?”

Sure it’d be counter-productive if I were using this strategy to actually appeal to those people, but those people aren’t my audience here. This is called venting.

As previously stated, I don’t support authoritarianism, I just think if we have to have it anyway, we might as well enjoy the so-called benefits. And isn’t it “moderate” of me to admit that there ARE advantages to authoritarianism anyway? Is it really so ridiculous to suggest that while freedom and democracy are great, there are some advantages to other systems? I feel I can safely advocate freedom of speech and democracy while still admitting there are some good things about authoritarianism. Call it hypocrisy if you like.

Anyway, that said, Kai wrote the “about” page you’re so fond of quoting, and while I have no problem with it, I wouldn’t describe myself as moderate. I am obviously and unabashedly liberal, so you can expect more crazy rants in the future.

If you would like to read more academic stuff, well, I think you already know about ChinaGeeks, and you’d probably enjoy the posts more there than you do here.

Re: your posts, they were in moderation. I approved them the first time I saw them…it’s not that I can’t think of a rebuttal, it’s just that I have more important things to do (no offense, but life comes before troll fights, unless I’m feeling particularly frisky).

You see, Joshua, some people draw conclusions based on a very strange concept called “reason”. Since homosexuals are harmless and not a threat to either Chinese society or the state, they should not be persecuted.

However, since fundamentalist nutjobs are a threat to humanity, they must be questioned.

Custer,
I have to agree with the rest of the posters thus far. You read like a leftist liberal American in this article. I support your right to say what you do, and I argee with your point of view on the problems of the ‘misproper’ use of christianity. But your article is slidding on a slippery slope against all christians, and in support of selective (ie in your favor) use of authoritarian rule.
It is scary that the religion, or mass perforamnce of any type, which is allowed in china is one which preaches hate is scary. While so many, ie singers etc. are restricted, that this is given free rien sends some message about what the government feels is proper for a harmonious society.
As for gays, China has a swelling and vibrant gay community that while existing in public to the point that most can tell you where gay distrcits are, few let their familys know, and few publically display their sexual prefference.
Will abstience education follow this gay bashing? Or will modernization overtake the government’s current stance, and promote sexual liberalization?

hm
White supremacists do not have government backing or support in the same fashion these groups are getting by being granted permission to hold their public performances. Thus these religious zelots are connected with the CHinese government’s policy practices while the white supremists are not (even though they have pretty high up supporters).

This article is hardly on any sort of slippery slope against the entirety of Christendom. That’d be like saying an article condemning the Klan is on a slippery slope towards condemning all white Americans. It’s silly. Heck, there are plenty of Christians who actively out the gay-bashing fundies as scary idiots, and I rather doubt they’re all on a slippery slope towards pointed self-loathing.

As for authoritarian rule, it’s a fact of life in China. I don’t see Custer doing anything more than saying “well, we ARE under this system for better or for worse, so why not use it for something that’s actually good?”

Custer. This is the first op piece of yours I like, or being a king, approve of.

Say negative things about christians, I will vote you up. I don’t think Chinese people are particularly anti-gay….pretty much live and let live in the orientation department, even if folks may not have a great understanding of how sexual orientation is shaped and organised…biologically and socially.

I think people should petition the PSB to get this US evangelical vermin deported and I’m very serious. Scum like this should have be denied visas in the first place. Im even more extreme than Stan on this one.

This is a tough call for me. I’m a huge free speech advocate yet a passionate atheist. As an American leftist pinko, though, I always try to err on the side of free speech. All other things being equal then, I would let this bozo speak.

On the other hand, and more to Custer’s point. If Beijing routinely goes after folks who rile up the masses and have a detrimental effect on the harmonious society, then for the sake of consistency, and to fight against divisiveness, they should not let guys like this in.

You’re right, but you’re missing one aspect of the argument- if the imbeciles heading the church in China are parading this moron about in front of thousands, they are prejudiced and putting him in a position of advantage over other speakers.

Custer, I must say this post as well as the Shanghaiist article seems like a rehash of information available on James Meeks wikipedia entry. While I accept that a wiki need not always quote their sources, I personally hold individuals making “bold” public statements to a higher standard.

That said, keep up the good work–I enjoy your blogs immensely. Contrary to what some have said in the comments, I wouldn’t worry to much about letting your emotion show in your posts. You are human after all.

Moreover, even though I don’t agree with boasting the advantages of an authoritarian government when it’s in your favor you are certainly entitled to your belief. As least where I live anyway.

HIV is viewed as an invasive disease here. It is prevelent along the boarderlands where there is heavy cross boarder sex trafficing and the least amount of community support. The Chinese government has spawned a public view that this is a foreign disease that is best prevented by stopping it from coming into the contry.
It is very interesting that the ban has been lifted… Has America’s ban been lifted?

We were just recently involved in a pro bono matter (Google Dr. Heidemarie Kremer) involving a German scientist who was HIV+ and assisted in preventing her and her children from being deported.

Yes, the language of the statute (which had originally explicitly referenced HIV) has been changed for a few years now, but it was just recently that CDC took HIV off the list of communicable diseases of public significance (I believe that’s the phrase used) in the C.F.R.

The argument was that, although the statute no longer required HIV be on the list, CDC is the agency in charge of promulgating the rules and regulations and nothing in the statute prohibits the CDC from keeping HIV on the list (it just was no longer mandatory by statute). And so it was kept this way for a while before CDC finally decided to take it off the list, as was the intent when the statute was initially amended. But this issue kept many people, including Dr. Kremer, in limbo for quite some time.

Just that many in the camp of the religious right approve of the HIV travel ban because they disapprove of homosexuality and attach the stigma of HIV naturally thereto (inappropriately, I agree). Also they tend to be fiscally conservative xenophobes as well and fear their taxes being spent on immigrants coming to the U.S. to seek superior HIV treatment … much rather the funds go to financing the war in Iraq no doubt.

These raging bigots foaming at the mouth are not the most dangerous religious types because anyone with a speck of common sense know to avoid contact with them, I fear it’s often the more reasonable and soft spoken evangelists who are subtly pushing and priming unsuspecting victims into the land of make-believe.

I suspect whoever allowed Meeks to slip pass customs did so with the understanding that he will probably turn away more people than he’d attract, suggesting to the public the validity of state controlled religion and the absurd results of too much religious freedom in America. However I also suspect there was a second and third gunmen on the grassy knoll, but they both missed.

As for the survey, while I would like to believe its conclusion, I’m afraid a sample size of 400 isn’t representative of anything Chinese.

Second, these two have made good friends in the Chinese central leadership. Mr. Palau even co-authored a book “Riverside talks” with Zhao Qizheng – formerly the public relation director of the Chinese State Council and now chairman of the Foreign Affairs Commitee of the CPCC. In their recent meeting, someone from the Chinese side suggested that “Riverside Talks” would become compulsory reading for all students in China.

Custer maybe you should really start to make some contigency plans to head to say North Korea.

I’m sorry, but as I read that article, the most prominent thought running through my head was ‘keep the fuck out of my country’. One thing I have always been glad about China was the lack of fanatical religious nuts espousing their bigoted views and condemning those who don’t agree with them (even though the abundance of fanatical patriotic nuts sadly counters this), and to see those scumbags try to bring their hateful vitriol to China like they did Uganda is pissing me off beyond words.

I hope this ‘anti-gay’ thing will achieve the exact opposite results they were aiming for.

While I am an average boring hetero monarch, I always wonder about people who take up gay bashing as a Mission from God….their central scripture. I suspect that somewhere in their past, they’ve had a Rubicon moment.

Having drinks with the guys, and in a secluded moment one of their male friends puts a hand on their knee to check out the possibilities.

Too pissed and the dread next morning…self contempt for going with the flow in those late hours, when identity dissolved and a new desire emerged.

Got to straighten up and get with the hetero male-female program, and if you can turn this self-recrimination/revelation into an earner, by god, the christian ministry needs people like you.

Oi, I have blonde hair. Just my incredibly awesome facial hair is red. So I’m still good. Arkansas is a chill place. It’s South Carolina where you have to fend off the rednecks. The Arkansas breed is pretty docile. Mountain folk and whatnot.

Think about this again and hopefully have better things to say this time.

– When Tong Zhan Bu is involved, I suspect this isn’t about religions anymore. Is this the same trick China’s leadership pulled to lure the western multinationals into forging the united frontline with China on Capitol Hill? Will the millions of prospect Chinese follower somehow convince the western religious groups to lower their strong anti-China stance? Indeed, if you’ve got no leverage over them, how are you gonna start the negotiation? I’m not sure the strategy will work well but that sounds like the motive behind this.

– This is much less about gay bashing than getting these organized religions out of the way. If they are influential enough then CCP gotta talk to them, even if they believe in twin-head deity.

– As far as I know, the last thing most Chinese gay guys want is involving in the political struggle and getting the spotlights coming after that. It’s bad enough that HIV/AIDS has unavoidably been politicized and high on the NED list.

So what did Meeks say in his preaching? Did he say something that offended you? You didn’t mention one ‘fundamentalist’ thing he said while in China.
It is funny how some commentors here say that Chinese doens’t need these “nutty wack jobs” over here. Ha! This country was run, from time to time, by worse preaching wack jobs. One died in 1976 and cause a heck of a lot more problems.

YOU ARE THE IDIOT…..you say you are tolerant…..EXCEPT for those people who have a different view than you…….to me, you and Rev. Meeks are one in the same…….stop trying to be a psuedo-intellectual because you are not one. You are a hypocrite. You are arguing against exactly what you are. You hate bigots who hate gays……I hate people who are intolerant of other people’s views, not matter how offended you may be. This is what the real meaning of freedom of speach means. You and your ilk think you know everything and you are vocal in defending the “rights” of the downtrodden. However, it is those very rights that allow them to be what they are. Get a life

Continuing the Discussion

welcome to china/divide

china/divide was a group blog launched March 1, 2010 by three China bloggers: Stan Abrams, Charles Custer, and Kai Pan. Less than three months later, on May 21st, china/divide was blocked by China’s “Great Firewall”, becoming inaccessible to readers in China without proxies or VPNs. Nearly five months later and after a total of 132 published posts, china/divide was quietly disbanded, except for an occasional post or two by Kai when a comment on another site just won’t do.

C. Custer is, paradoxically, a man of few words but also a man who just will not stop writing about China. He is in a loving open relationship with his first China blog, ChinaGeeks, and also does freelance writing and translating about China. In his free time, he enjoys inscrutability and video games.